Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
CITY OF GALVESTON et al. v. UNITED STATES et al., 1967 — 386 U.S. 269 · caselaw · US
General
CITY OF GALVESTON et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
386 U.S. 269·Supreme Court of the United States·1967
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
CITY OF GALVESTON et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 827.
Decided March 13, 1967.
Harold E. Spencer and Nuel D. Belnap for appellants in No. 827. Don McDevitt, Sterling W. Steves, Harvey Huston and Milton E. Nelson, Jr., for appellants in No. 828.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Irwin A. Seibel, Robert W. Ginnane and Leonard S. Goodman for the' United States et al. in both cases. Frank A. Leffingwell for appellees Nueces County Navigation District No. 1 et al. in both cases.
Together with No. 828, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. United States et al., also on appeal from the same court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion to affirm is granted and the- judgment is affirmed.